WIF Lithuania holds Livonia

By the end of the Livonian War (1558–1583) the Baltic provinces had been split between the PLC (Lithuania) and Sweden. Sweden got Estonia while the PLC got Latvia (directly and the vassal states).
300px-Map_of_Poland_and_Lithuania_in_1600.svg.png


When Sigismund III was kicked out of Sweden he "generously" promised Estonia to the PLC (almost like in "The Deluge": "And I'm granting his Swedish Majesty the Netherlands!" :)). Series of Swedish-Polish wars followed (1600 - 1629) with the resulting complete loss of Livonia by the PLC.

Armies of the PLC had been routinely winning the field battles but were ill-structured for siege warfare and as soon as the Swedes had been capturing a fortified city, squeezing them out was almost impossible. However, the early brilliant victories of the PLC's cavalry and unwillingness of the Sejm to spend money on these wars prevented the Commonwealth from a proper modernization of its armies and the rest is history.

Now, let's assume that the common sense prevailed, the army is properly modernized (BTW, by the time of the Smolensk War of 1632–1634 the PLC had a reasonably good infantry and artillery so the task was not impossible) and the PLC retains the area.

What are consequences?

1st, Sweden is not getting the custom dues from Riga and other Livonian ports through which Lithuanian grain was exported (even when the war was going on). Hence, less money to build and maintain an army.

2nd, GA, after being defeated in Livonia, may not have enough reputation to get French subsidies so, in the best case scenario, the Swedes are not even appearing in the 30YW.

3rd, in a long term there is no reason for the GNW: Riga and most of Livonia already are in the Polish hands and Peter would be reluctant to start war against Sweden without the allies. As a result, Russian Baltic adventure either does not happen or happens noticeably later and scope of the initial conquests would be different: either Latvia with Riga if the war is against the PLC or Ingria and perhaps Estonia if it is against Sweden. It is unlikely that there will be a war against both simultaneously (actually, this was a case during the reign of Tsar Alexey but it was a byproduct of the diplomatic misunderstanding: Tsardom started war with Sweden not knowing that a peace treaty with the PLC must be ratified by the Sejm).

Opinions?
 
Keeping Livonia in long term would require sane monarchs on the throne of PLC (most of sons of Sigismund III inherited Vasa's menthal healt proplems, which in previous generation manifested in madness of Eric XIV and Magnus Vasa). If not the fact, that he lost touch with reallity during last years of his life (anti-Ottoman crusade with the main goal being restoration of Constantinopole to the Christian rule, that was pure madness), he could succeede in this, (especially if dowry of his second wife is not wasted for preparation of his nonsense crusade, that only made Khmielnitsky Uprising more successful), he was skilled commander, maybe not military genius, but he was the man behind these military reforms. If John Casimir, who lacked military skills, but still insisted on taking personal command, was king since 1632 he could easily turn Smolensk War into disaster, maybe even get captured or killed. So make Władysław IV sane and perhaps healthier (less drinking and whoring should improve his health).
 
Keeping Livonia in long term would require sane monarchs on the throne of PLC (most of sons of Sigismund III inherited Vasa's menthal healt proplems, which in previous generation manifested in madness of Eric XIV and Magnus Vasa). If not the fact, that he lost touch with reallity during last years of his life (anti-Ottoman crusade with the main goal being restoration of Constantinopole to the Christian rule, that was pure madness), he could succeede in this, (especially if dowry of his second wife is not wasted for preparation of his nonsense crusade, that only made Khmielnitsky Uprising more successful), he was skilled commander, maybe not military genius, but he was the man behind these military reforms. If John Casimir, who lacked military skills, but still insisted on taking personal command, was king since 1632 he could easily turn Smolensk War into disaster, maybe even get captured or killed. So make Władysław IV sane and perhaps healthier (less drinking and whoring should improve his health).

Well, having the sane monarchs is (almost) always an advantage but I'm mostly interested in 2 aspects:

1st, early modernization of the PLC army. As I already said, the existing model based upon the heavy cavalry was seemingly working because it kept producing the victories on a battlefield. But these victories distracted attention from the fact that having superb cavalry was not enough for holding and taking the fortified places and both infantry and artillery kept being neglected. Actually, by the time of Smolensk War Wladislaw managed to have a reasonably decent infantry but the winning branch was still a cavalry: while infantry on the Russian side had slight advantage (direct copying from the "Western models"), Polish cavalry had an overwhelming advantage and was able to block all Russian moves. Anyway, Smolensk War was too late and had nothing to do with Livonia and the earlier wars with Sweden were too early for Wladislaw: his father was still alive and kicking. Of course, creation of a good infantry was a long process requiring systematic work and a lot of money. Which means that importance of the task would have to be appreciated by the Sejm AND that the process starts in the late XVI.

2nd, different geopolitical situation in which Sweden is in a possession of just Estonia and Ingria. As I said, the "triggering condition" of the GNW is simply not there and the whole thing may end up as a series of the localized conflicts.


As far as Sigismund is involved, I'd say that his planned crusade was only a part (not sure if the worst one) of his antics:

1. The whole thing with Estonia triggered series of wars with Sweden with the eventual loss of the Baltic Provinces.

2. Sticking to the Swedish claim had the long-term consequences lasting all the way to the Deluge.

3. Interference into the Russian affairs during the Time of Troubles produced temporary gain (Smolensk region) and at some point had a chance to succeed because Wladislaw was acknowledged as Tsar of Russia but in the most critical moment Sigismund managed to screw things up by injecting his own, clearly unacceptable, candidacy. Can't tell about Wladislaw's sanity but his Moscow Campaign was not quite sane either even if there was a non-zero chance of taking Moscow: he was already rejected, the Poles became "national enemies" and Moscow (as the earlier events should demonstrate) was not critically important. Long-term results: Russian - Polish War of 1654–1667 with a loss of a big chunk of the PLC's territory and general exhaustion.
 
Sigismund III likely assumed, that Władysław as Tsar would not live long, Sigismund knew what happened to False Dimitri and didn't want the same fate for his son.
And for avoiding/delaying conflict over Livonia I think best way is to prevent Sigismund III from ever taking Swedish throne (for example by making Johan Vasa living to ripe old age-his sister Cecilia died at age 86, so long living Vasa is not something unthinkable. If Johan lives long enough he could pass the throne to adult Władysław, who would move to Stockholm, where he would likely convert to Lutheranism sooner or later, Władysław was religiously elastic, unlike Sigismund's younger sons. Dad would not be happy, but he tolerated Lutheran sister, he would live with this. That would at least solved problem of his promise to give Estonia to PLC-Sigismund said, that he would do this after taking Swedish throne, if Swedish crown is passed straight from his father to his son then his promise is not problem anymore.)
 
Sigismund III likely assumed, that Władysław as Tsar would not live long, Sigismund knew what happened to False Dimitri and didn't want the same fate for his son.

..... so, quite unselfishly, he claimed this throne for himself. Great example of fatherly love. x'D

I don't think that this was his main motivation: it looks like he simply did not bother to understand the situation and tried to get by force (which he lacked) what his son could get easily. There were obvious differences between Wladislaw's situation and one of False Dmitri, starting with the fact that there were no doubts about Wladislaw's identity and benefits for Russia (in the terms of ending international conflict and civil war) from him getting the crown. Besides, if in the case of Dmitri there were, among other things, doubts in his Orthodoxy, an explicit condition of Wladislaw's acceptance was his conversion. Of course, an ultra-Catholic like Sigismund was a completely unacceptable figure as Tsar of Moscow but it seems that he simply could not grasp the realities.

And for avoiding/delaying conflict over Livonia I think best way is to prevent Sigismund III from ever taking Swedish throne (for example by making Johan Vasa living to ripe old age-his sister Cecilia died at age 86, so long living Vasa is not something unthinkable. If Johan lives long enough he could pass the throne to adult Władysław, who would move to Stockholm, where he would likely convert to Lutheranism sooner or later, Władysław was religiously elastic, unlike Sigismund's younger sons. Dad would not be happy, but he tolerated Lutheran sister, he would live with this. That would at least solved problem of his promise to give Estonia to PLC-Sigismund said, that he would do this after taking Swedish throne, if Swedish crown is passed straight from his father to his son then his promise is not problem anymore.)

Well, but this would leave Wladislaw with a claim to the PLC throne after Sigismund's death. No, in my opinion, the only remedy from the situations like this one was to have an army capable of dealing with the "challenges".

OTOH, within your scenario it would be reasonable to assume that Sigismund just starts with the aggression against the Muscovite state without bothering with any claims. Which creates an interesting situation because OTL Swedish-Russian anti-Polish alliance is unlikely if Wladislaw is King of Sweden. Situation is for a while worse for Russia (in OTL alliance, anyway, ended with a Swedish occupation of Novgorod region) militarily but better politically because there is no Wladislaw's party and no noticeable Polish support in Tsardom.
 
Władysław, having bunch of brothers who at the time of Sigismund's death would also be adult, and devout Catholic unlike him, would have little chance to be elected in 1632.
If his father was equally religiously elastic (so he could say "Moscow for my son is worth Orthodox mass"-Władysław himself would not mind the difference, change of confession would not make whoring and drinking more difficutl for him) and decided to let Władysław go to Moscow and convert, assuming Władysław would survive (still, rather not the most likely scenario) ... I'm trying to imagine what he would do? Attempt to restore Byzantine Empire with him on the throne is absolute minimum ;)
 
Władysław, having bunch of brothers who at the time of Sigismund's death would also be adult, and devout Catholic unlike him, would have little chance to be elected in 1632.

Well, being a Lutheran (and not elected to the PLC throne) did not prevent Charles Gustav from invading the PLC and Wladislaw would be in even better position.

If his father was equally religiously elastic (so he could say "Moscow for my son is worth Orthodox mass"-Władysław himself would not mind the difference, change of confession would not make whoring and drinking more difficutl for him) and decided to let Władysław go to Moscow and convert, assuming Władysław would survive (still, rather not the most likely scenario) ... I'm trying to imagine what he would do? Attempt to restore Byzantine Empire with him on the throne is absolute minimum ;)

Ah well, whoever was inheriting the throne of Moscow at that time would have a long list of the issues to resolve before launching a major war against the Ottomans. :teary:

1. The country was devastated economically so there would be a need to restore at least the Persian trade. Which means, for the starters, to restore control over the towns along Volga route (and you'll need money to pay the troops).
2. There would be a pressing need to deal with the marauding Cossacks (mostly Polish subjects but those of the Don as well) and various local bandits.
3. Find some money to keep some meaningful force on the Southern border against the Crimeans.
4. Find way to get back the Swedish-held territories on the North.
5. Give everybody at least some time to start bringing back agriculture and trade.
6. Start building a new modern army, which means that (a) you need money and (b) you have to build it without destruction of the old structures (or your reign may end up being short and painful).
7. The touchy issue of getting back the Russian territories captured by your dear Papa (Smolensk being the most prominent, even if relatively useless item). Ditto for the prominent prisoners who are still in Polish hands (including Patriarch).
8. Learn and adopt at least most important local habits to avoid the fate of Dmitri (not taking a nap after the dinner is a sure sign of being a "heretic", etc.).
9. Build up at least some local support both on the top (boyars and the Church) and middle (ordinary nobility, streltsy): money, land grants, profitable positions, etc. but the country is devastated and you don't have money. Wladislaw was, of course, elected but he was elected by the top boyars, not Zemsky Sobor, so he would have to work on developing his popularity before making any move.

The list is obviously incomplete. People with a better knowledge of this period probably could at least double the number of items. :p
 
Top